Swamp Test

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Guys... just one "small" tidbit if I may... [;)]


The HEX is WitE is quite big and, therefore, one should not consider the given HEX type as 100% terrain type!


In other words if you have, let's say, the "Swamp" HEX one should not assume that swamps are in 100% of that HEX - it is just representation of terrain map at that area (good or bad - it is still only approximation)!

Thus the HEX terrain type penalty are simulated through various MP penalties for different unit types (i.e. some unit types can pass through some terrain types easier than other unit types) and we have some special CV penalties (and actual firing penalties) for armor units in certain HEX types - all is explained in manual...


Leo "Apollo11"

[rolypoly]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Guys... just one "small" tidbit if I may... [;)]


The HEX is WitE is quite big and, therefore, one should not consider the given HEX type as 100% terrain type!


In other words if you have, let's say, the "Swamp" HEX one should not assume that swamps are in 100% of that HEX - it is just representation of terrain map at that area (good or bad - it is still only approximation)!


Leo "Apollo11"

Even though I am a noob in this game, I couldn´t agree more to this point of view! How is it that Germans found a way through "impenetrable" Ardennes in the ´40 campaign? Possibly because the ´hex´ wasn´t 100% impenetrable... Some kind of different values in hexes could add more depth to commander´s decisions...

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: rolypoly

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Guys... just one "small" tidbit if I may... [;)]


The HEX is WitE is quite big and, therefore, one should not consider the given HEX type as 100% terrain type!


In other words if you have, let's say, the "Swamp" HEX one should not assume that swamps are in 100% of that HEX - it is just representation of terrain map at that area (good or bad - it is still only approximation)!


Leo "Apollo11"

Even though I am a noob in this game, I couldn´t agree more to this point of view! How is it that Germans found a way through "impenetrable" Ardennes in the ´40 campaign? Possibly because the ´hex´ wasn´t 100% impenetrable... Some kind of different values in hexes could add more depth to commander´s decisions...

It is one thing just to move through a hex, it is something else to fight through it. With mechanised units confined to roads things can get iffy very soon. Also the Ardennes have a LOT more roads and infrastructure than the Pripet marshes or any other russian bog for that matter.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Armored units suffer reduced CV in final calculation for terrain control (i.e. that is "Modified CV you see at the bottom of the "Combat Screen") - this is crucial when odds are calculated whether defenders hold or not!!!

This happens for "Rough" and "Swamp" and "Heavy Woods" regarding armor!

This also happens in Urban HEXes (and there the armored units are also penalized in actual combat - they don't get to fire from long ranges)!

15.6.2.3. TERRAIN CV MODIFIER

AFV and combat vehicle type ground elements will have their CV (26.1.4) reduced by half when attacking or defending in urban, heavy woods, swamp, broken and mountain hexes. Infantry type ground elements will have their CV doubled when in urban, heavy woods, swamp, broken and mountain hexes.

V1.03 Beta 3 – February 7, 2011

1. Rule addendum and rule change – Units defending in Heavy or Light Urban terrain receive a doubling of their Combat Value when determining the winner and loser of the battle. This doubling is in addition to all other modifiers previously reported. Prior to this version, this doubling also applied to defenders in Swamp, Rough, Mountain and Heavy Forest terrain. This has been removed, so the doubling now only occurs in Heavy or Light Urban terrain.

Leo "Apollo11"

[rolypoly]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: rolypoly

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Guys... just one "small" tidbit if I may... [;)]


The HEX is WitE is quite big and, therefore, one should not consider the given HEX type as 100% terrain type!


In other words if you have, let's say, the "Swamp" HEX one should not assume that swamps are in 100% of that HEX - it is just representation of terrain map at that area (good or bad - it is still only approximation)!


Leo "Apollo11"

Even though I am a noob in this game, I couldn´t agree more to this point of view! How is it that Germans found a way through "impenetrable" Ardennes in the ´40 campaign? Possibly because the ´hex´ wasn´t 100% impenetrable... Some kind of different values in hexes could add more depth to commander´s decisions...

It is one thing just to move through a hex, it is something else to fight through it. With mechanised units confined to roads things can get iffy very soon. Also the Ardennes have a LOT more roads and infrastructure than the Pripet marshes or any other russian bog for that matter.

A good point there, but the basics of the issue still remains: if a hex is reported as a swamp, isn´t that a little too black & white? even though the scale of the game is way bigger than that, id like to see semi-swamps as well. just like there are different densities in forests.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: rolypoly


A good point there, but the basics of the issue still remains: if a hex is reported as a swamp, isn´t that a little too black & white? even though the scale of the game is way bigger than that, id like to see semi-swamps as well. just like there are different densities in forests.

So who gets to do the geographical and boreal survey of the 1941 Soviet Union to determine which areas are swamp and semi-swamp? Some compromises had to be made to get the game on the market eventually.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Guys... just one "small" tidbit if I may... [;)]


The HEX is WitE is quite big and, therefore, one should not consider the given HEX type as 100% terrain type!


In other words if you have, let's say, the "Swamp" HEX one should not assume that swamps are in 100% of that HEX - it is just representation of terrain map at that area (good or bad - it is still only approximation)!

Thus the HEX terrain type penalty are simulated through various MP penalties for different unit types (i.e. some unit types can pass through some terrain types easier than other unit types) and we have some special CV penalties (and actual firing penalties) for armor units in certain HEX types - all is explained in manual...


Leo "Apollo11"

This is correct in some instances. Many of the hexes in the area of Russia in the northwest are swamp but there are many roads and villages there also. Some areas are solid swamp. In the game map the area east of Tikhvin is seven hexes of swamp north to south. In reality the largest extent would be four hexes of solid swamp north to south. The map maker is merely trying to portray the main terrain feature. If you put swamps in all the hexes where that terrain feature exists in western Russia you would have a swamp map. [:D]

[rolypoly]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

ORIGINAL: rolypoly


A good point there, but the basics of the issue still remains: if a hex is reported as a swamp, isn´t that a little too black & white? even though the scale of the game is way bigger than that, id like to see semi-swamps as well. just like there are different densities in forests.

So who gets to do the geographical and boreal survey of the 1941 Soviet Union to determine which areas are swamp and semi-swamp? Some compromises had to be made to get the game on the market eventually.

I´d do it for 12€/h but wouldn´t guarantee 100% accurate results [:D]

[marty_01]

Swamps as defensive terrain feels very underwhelming as a result of the new patch. Perhaps they were too strong in the original game – perhaps not. I usually could get my way through swamps if I first isolated the defending units and then attacked on the following turn. I learned quickly that trying frontal assaults against entrenched troops in swamps was not a very successful tactic. So I learned to try and bypass these areas. This becomes rather difficult around Leningrad. But than why shouldn’t it be difficult to attack through well entrenched troops that are in good defensive terrain.

Looking through the various posts on this thread:

Yes I agree that a hex represents a large number of square kilometers and that a “SWAMP hex” isn’t 100% covered with peat bogs, woods, drainage swales, ponds etc. But than a CLEAR terrain hex isn’t devoid of wooded areas, creeks, balkas, swamps, etc etc.

However, the presence of: peat bogs, wooded areas, soft bottom drainage swales, impassable ponds\small lakes within a given SWAMP represent a significant combat multiplier to a defending formation. Why – because a large percentage of the ground within a given SWAMP hex represents areas that are not traversable by either: foot traffic, wheeled vehicles or tracked vehicles. This allows a defending force to focus its combat power on those portions of a swamp hex that represent ground that is traversable by either guys on foot, wheeled vehicles or tracked vehicles. Further, it canalizes an attacking force into narrow and very predictable kill zones. In addition, it reduces or eliminates any combat power multiplier an attacking force might hope to gain via maneuver. AND, I mean this in relative terms when comparing the same defending force that has to hold a given CLEAR terrain hex against the same attacking force.

This same aspect of swamps – i.e. limited portions of the hex representing areas traversable by foot or motorized\mechanized traffic – acts to increase the time required for a given formation to move through the hex. I am speaking of operational level formations with long trains of vehicles. And I again mean this is relative terms – passing through a defile in a SWAMP hex vs. perhaps relatively limited terrain impediment when moving through a CLEAR Terrain Hex. A large motorized\mechanized formation – Regiment, Division, Corp level stack -- in march column that has to restrict it’s movement through a given piece of terrain via one or two roads\tracks or trails will require a greater amount of time to traverse that piece of terrain than say a piece of terrain with 10 or 15 roads\tracks or trails. Picture a funnel with a variable sized opening on the bottom. If I dump water into the funnel when the opening on the bottom is big, the water passes through quickly. Conversely, if I really constrict the opening on the bottom of the funnel, the water passes through the funnel slowly. This is no different than what a lot of us experience in our everyday commute to and from work. Stuff too many cars onto a given road and things invariably slow down or grind to a complete halt. Now add several lanes to that same road. Things speed up.

I’m a civil engineer by profession and I have had to design roads and bridges that invariably have to pass through or over wetlands, peat bogs, wooded swamps and etc. This is extremely difficult work in terms of pioneering roads and temporary construction routes through this sort terrain – difficult in terms of: costs, time required, and specialized equipment & materials need to undertake this sort of construction. In that sense I have little difficulty in believing a SWAMP hex with a gaming environment should represent a fairly significant obstacle for movement, as well as a significant combat power multiplier for any force defending within a SWAMP hex.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: rolypoly

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

ORIGINAL: rolypoly


A good point there, but the basics of the issue still remains: if a hex is reported as a swamp, isn´t that a little too black & white? even though the scale of the game is way bigger than that, id like to see semi-swamps as well. just like there are different densities in forests.

So who gets to do the geographical and boreal survey of the 1941 Soviet Union to determine which areas are swamp and semi-swamp? Some compromises had to be made to get the game on the market eventually.

I´d do it for 12€/h but wouldn´t guarantee 100% accurate results [:D]

I've often thought there needs to be a disclaimer with war game maps-- not meant to be used as an atlas or for navigational purposes. [:D]

[squatter]

Swamps were definitely overpowered for defence in the last patch.

Weak soviet divisions who were not dug in could hold stacks of attacking armour.

The developers found a bug where swamp was doubling defending CV. This has been changed, which is good.

The main issue remaining is mechanised movement in swamps. This should be much higher. As should heavy forrest. The poster from Sweden is on the money: these are serious wildernesses, unlike anything in Western Europe, that make the ardennes look like an English garden.

Light woods and rough hexes should represent marginal/mixed swamp and forrest. Swamp and heavy woods should be practically impassible to armoured units (perhaps other than along rr, but even then it should be slow). Its probably about right for infantry.

And the idea for extra attrition in swamp is good, and has been suggested before.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: squatter


Swamps were definitely overpowered for defence in the last patch.

Weak soviet divisions who were not dug in could hold stacks of attacking armour.

The developers found a bug where swamp was doubling defending CV. This has been changed, which is good.

The main issue remaining is mechanised movement in swamps. This should be much higher. As should heavy forrest. The poster from Sweden is on the money: these are serious wildernesses, unlike anything in Western Europe, that make the ardennes look like an English garden.

Light woods and rough hexes should represent marginal/mixed swamp and forrest. Swamp and heavy woods should be practically impassible to armoured units (perhaps other than along rr, but even then it should be slow). Its probably about right for infantry.

And the idea for extra attrition in swamp is good, and has been suggested before.

In the presence of enemy ZOC, heavy woods would be a large problem. You'd be restricted to roads and small combat power could significantly impede movement speed.

However, outside of enemy ZOC, you should move fine, presumably in column formation on decent roads.

And if we're going to get all persnickety about terrain and realism, then we should be arguing for bridges across major rivers, and decreased movement costs when moving along a railroad path.

Personally I'm not ready to change swamps since the patch fixed the doubling of CV. I think perhaps many Soviet players are forgetting how limited a 50% TOE Soviet rifle division's force projection is in a 10-mile area. I play both sides, and when a Soviet rifle division with good TOE (75% plus) and average (for Soviet) morale gets a level 1 fort, it's still well more than a speed bump.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: squatter


The main issue remaining is mechanised movement in swamps. This should be much higher. As should heavy forrest. The poster from Sweden is on the money: these are serious wildernesses, unlike anything in Western Europe, that make the ardennes look like an English garden.

Have you ever seen an English garden? Getting through one with a tank without the owner killing you for damaging the flowers is virtually impossible. You can only do it if you say you are from Time Team ( for the non-UK reader this is a TV archaeology programme)

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
You can only do it if you say you are from Time Team ( for the non-UK reader this is a TV archaeology programme)

... or any other program that gives you the opportunity to be on the telly! [:'(]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Just out of interest, has anyone ever noticed that unit's defensive CV's in swamp hexes only show a doubling of CV (like light woods), when they should be trebled (like heavy woods).It's never bothered me until now because they've always behaved more like permanent level 5 forts.Is this just cosmetic or are swamps now too easy for attackers?

I investigated this further and reported it to developer's forum - Pavel fixed it and it will be in next patch!

Please note that it was only display quirk - the data was OK internally and combat values used in actual fighting were always correct...


Leo "Apollo11"

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I investigated this further and reported it to developer's forum - Pavel fixed it and it will be in next patch!

Please note that it was only display quirk - the data was OK internally and combat values used in actual fighting were always correct...

Leo "Apollo11"

Thanks very much!Good to know everything's working OK underneath.
Just to cement my reputation as an enormous pain in the bum, I've since realized that the same thing applies to defensive CV's in heavy woods.Rough terrain seems fine.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I investigated this further and reported it to developer's forum - Pavel fixed it and it will be in next patch!

Please note that it was only display quirk - the data was OK internally and combat values used in actual fighting were always correct...

Thanks very much!Good to know everything's working OK underneath.
Just to cement my reputation as an enormous pain in the bum, I've since realized that the same thing applies to defensive CV's in heavy woods.Rough terrain seems fine.

Yep... we know... fixed already... [:)]

On map defending CV values for units in Swamp and Heavy Forest hexes were being calculated as if their terrain fort value was +1 when in reality their terrain fort value was +2. This caused the displayed defending CV to be undervalued. This was a display bug only, and has been fixed.

Leo "Apollo11"